tA/a7 /<s-^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




F 347 
.U29 
K52 
Copy 1 



BEFORE THE MIXED COMMISSION 



ON 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN CLAIMS. 



John Purvis, heirs of — ■) 

vs. VNo. 138. 

United States, j 

CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO THE BRIEF OF THE AGENT 
AND COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Trusting that the evidence of title of the memorialists is satis- 
factory, and that, if not so, there will be allowed time to add 
to the proof on that point, I proceed to consider the merits 
of the case, in reply to the brief filed by the United States. 
The claimants in this case applied to the United States for 
relief, as soon as practicable, after the close of the war. Ac- 
■ cording to the report of General Dunn, (p. 46 of memorial,) 
the claim was originally submitted by Sir Frederick Bruce, 
on December 1st, 1865, and transmitted to the War Depart- 
ment on the 30th of January following. Four days there- 
after, to wit : on the 3d of February, all the papers, includ- 
ing Mr. Bruce's declaration and list of valuation, with 
accompanying testimony, was referred by the Secretary of 
War to Major General Wood, commanding department of 
the Mississippi, for investigation and report. 

Under this order General Wood directed Major A. E. 
Barnes to make the investigation, the result of which is 
clearly stated in his (Major B.'s) report, (page 46.) The 
honorable counsel for the United States takes exception to 
this report, and says it " was never approved by the War 
Department or any officer authorized to pass upon it, but 
was disapproved and rejected by the Judge Advocate Gen- 






eral," &c. I respe3tfuHy submit that there is no evidence 
that it was ever disapproved or rejected, but on the contrary, 
that it appears to have been received as satisfactory, both to 
General "Wood and the Secretary of War, since no further 
investigation of the matter was ordered. I am at a loss to 
conceive what there is in said report to justify the terms by 
which the honorable counsel for the United States has seen 
fit to characterize it. Major Barnes was required to attend 
to a plain, specific duty, which he appears to have faithfully 
performed. The Judge Advocate General, as Mr. Hale him- 
self admits, did not undertake to pass upon the merits of 
Major Barnes' report, but confined his decision exclusively 
to the question of jurisdiction, which he said rested alone in 
Congress. 

Mr. Hale also takes exception to the affidavits accompany- 
ing said report, and speaks of the proofs filed by the claim- 
ants as " exceedingly loose and irregular," whereas if the 
witnesses are to be credited, and I am not aware that their 
credibility has been questioned, their testimony, one would 
suppose, should, under the circumstances, be regarded as very 
satisfactory. It is true, there may be a few items in the 
"list of valuation," certified to by them as correct, which 
might not come properly under the head of quartermaster 
stores ; but they do not say that all the articles named in 
that list were appropriated to the use of the United States 
army. Some things were destroyed. The item of 850 acres 
of corn, among others, is instanced by Mr. Hale as in this 
category ; but if reference is made to the affidavit of Ulysses 
Ross, at page 35, it will be observed that he says he saw the 
Federal forces " gathering green corn from the field and 
hauling it away," thus showing that this large field of corn, 
instead of being " trampled down by the movements of the 
armies," was probably used as food for the army horses and 
mules, if not for the soldiers, of the United States army. 
Mr. Bruce states (page 30) that the forces of General 
Grant's " army came upon the place at difterent times and 



8 

took and carried away, for the use of the army, * * all 
the corn, bacon, potatoes, peas, fodder, and supplies of all 
kinds," &c. Instead of being the " ordinary ravages of 
war," these seizures, so far as stores and supplies are con- 
cerned, are the subject of claims against the United States 
of the sanie character precisely as are daily being adjusted 
and settled in the Quarteruaaster's Department and before 
the Southern Claims Cpmmission. 

Touching the reference of Mr. Hale to the statement in 
the memorial, that after the 15th of May, 1863, " no part of 
Warren county was under the control of the Confederate 
troops," I beg to remark that this is an evident mis- 
take, which should not be allowed to prejudice the case; 
because, notwithstanding the incorrectness of the statement, 
I respectfully submit that it is comparatively immaterial 
what troops were in possession, since it is proved that the 
property for which claim is made was taken by and used 
toward the support of the United States army. What the 
memorialists doubtless meant to say was, that the county of 
Warren — that is, the " country," in contradistinction to that 
part of the county in which the city of Vicksburg is situated — 
*'had been recovered by the troops of the United States," 
and that the Confederate troops no longer had had control 
there, which, I think, is true. 

December 11, 1872. 

Horatio King, 
Attorney for Claimants. 

Respectfully submitted. 

J. M. Carlisle, 
E. B. M:s Counsel. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRES 



014 540 687 i 



I 



